Montgomery v. Louisiana: The United States Supreme Court and Retroactivity in Criminal Law Collateral Review Cases under the Teague Standard
Faculty Sponsor
Julia Stronks, Whitworth University
Research Project Abstract
In Miller v. Alabama (2015) the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for crimes committed by individuals who were under the age of 18 violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. My research examined the facts of Montgomery v. Louisiana, a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court whose issue is “Whether Miller v. Alabama adopts a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people condemned as juveniles to die in prison.” It then looked at the history and evolution of retroactivity in criminal law and the arguments of both the Respondent and the Petitioner in the Montgomery case. Finally, it analyzed statements and voting patterns of the current justices in relevant cases and predicted that the Court’s decision would be 6-3 in favor of Miller’s retroactive application.
Session Number
RS11
Location
Robinson 141
Abstract Number
RS11-c
Montgomery v. Louisiana: The United States Supreme Court and Retroactivity in Criminal Law Collateral Review Cases under the Teague Standard
Robinson 141
In Miller v. Alabama (2015) the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for crimes committed by individuals who were under the age of 18 violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. My research examined the facts of Montgomery v. Louisiana, a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court whose issue is “Whether Miller v. Alabama adopts a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people condemned as juveniles to die in prison.” It then looked at the history and evolution of retroactivity in criminal law and the arguments of both the Respondent and the Petitioner in the Montgomery case. Finally, it analyzed statements and voting patterns of the current justices in relevant cases and predicted that the Court’s decision would be 6-3 in favor of Miller’s retroactive application.
